Contrary to its image, Intersectionality did not make any significant contribution to the critique of anti-discrimination law; in fact, many of its original claims seriously misrepresent it
It was probably removed out of embarrassment at promulgating such a stupid and eye-glazing term as "intersectional positionalities".
Well, that's my take on it. I had to stop reading your essay when I got to that, out of sheer disgust. I have very little patience with stuff like this, even though it's probably good for me to read it. No judgment on you! I appreciate your willingness to wade in.
Haha you're way too optimistic! many aren't embarrassed at all to use this (and much worse things), it's actually very popular. And thanks!
No worries, the synopsis is that her claims are fallacious and entirely baseless. She says that courts didn't accept claims of discrimination brought by black women at the time, but they did! And that this and the general incoherence of her claims undermine her entire grandiose made up theory of "intersectionality"
Regardless, her claims have since then been propagated enthusiastically all over the world...
The link for "intersectional positionalities" is now broken. But the Internet Archive has a preserved version here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230323133354/https://lsa.umich.edu/social-solutions/news-events/news/insights-and-solutions/infographics/intersectionality--positionality--and-privelege.html
Thanks Tim! Interesting that they removed it.
It was probably removed out of embarrassment at promulgating such a stupid and eye-glazing term as "intersectional positionalities".
Well, that's my take on it. I had to stop reading your essay when I got to that, out of sheer disgust. I have very little patience with stuff like this, even though it's probably good for me to read it. No judgment on you! I appreciate your willingness to wade in.
Haha you're way too optimistic! many aren't embarrassed at all to use this (and much worse things), it's actually very popular. And thanks!
No worries, the synopsis is that her claims are fallacious and entirely baseless. She says that courts didn't accept claims of discrimination brought by black women at the time, but they did! And that this and the general incoherence of her claims undermine her entire grandiose made up theory of "intersectionality"
Regardless, her claims have since then been propagated enthusiastically all over the world...